What’s Iowa?

Ils reprennent une info du très sérieux L’Informé.

That’s the only good part of far right movements : they all hate each others.

I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as Windows, is in fact, Firefox/Windows, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, Firefox plus Windows. Windows is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another component of a fully functioning Firefox system made useful by the Firefox browser, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS.

Many computer users run a modified version of the Firefox system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of Firefox which is widely used today is often called Windows, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the Firefox system, developed by Mozilla.

There really is a Windows, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Windows is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Windows is normally used in combination with the Firefox operating system: the whole system is basically Firefox with Windows added, or Firefox/Windows. All the so-called Windows distributions are really distributions of Firefox/Windows!

I’ve wasted enough time arguing with edgy atheists and fundamentalists on the internet… I’m limiting myself to real people and memes these days.

It just notes that there are a plurality of interpretation of the Bible, and that edgy atheists and evangelicals generally have the same, but the firsts reject Christianity because of this interpretation while evangelicals embrace this interpretation.

Romans 1:27 speaks of “lust for one another”. Mutual lust is an aspect of a sexual relationship. Are you trying to tell me that homosexual men don’t lust after each other?

In my mother tongue, lust and desire are very different things. It’s normal to desire your significant other, not to lust after them. It may not be the case in English, but it was in Greek.

There is absolutely zero mention of children when there could be

Yes, but that’s why I spoke about culture. There were no need to explicitly speak about children, as the involvement of children was the norm. On the contrary if Paul spoke about adult relationship too, it would have been logical for him to say that explicitly, and he didn’t.

And these “scholarly revelations” about the meaning of these verses in the Bible did not predate the LGB movement.

That’s normal, science and culture evolve, and out understanding of the Scriptures have to evolve too. Just like everyone thought that the Bible taught that the Earth was the center of the universe. It was logical for everyone that, say Isaiah 40:22 was geocentric. And we discovered that Earth was not the center of the universe, and we stopped to take these texts literally. It will be the same with the texts about homosexuality, as our understanding of sexuality changed.

The word αρσενοκοιται

αρσεν Male

κοιται Bed

It literally means “males who bed with other males (in a sexual manner)”

And “butterfly” literally means “winged insect made of butter”.

An ἀρσενοκοίτης is a male who has homosexual relationships, but there’s no certainty about which kind. Nothing permits to be sure that Paul thought there about all kinds of homosexual relationships, that’s why I said and still say that these texts aren’t clear.

We have two clues, however, that suggest this is not the case. The first is Romans 1:27, which does not speak of love but of lust. Nothing to do with today’s romantic and sexual homosexuality. The second is Paul’s context: in his time, homosexual sexuality existed mainly in the form of pederasty, that is, the rape of young boys by mature men. So when Paul writes about “males who bed with other males (in a sexual manner)” he has this image first in mind. It would therefore be entirely justified to translate ἀρσενοκοῖται as “pederasts” and not as “homosexuals”.

If these texts seem clear to you, it is because you are injecting your cultural homophobia into them. This is the opposite of “taking the Bible seriously.”

None of these words can be translated by “homosexual” or “homosexuality”, if you understand homosexuality as “a loving and stable romantic and sexual relationship between two persons of the same sex” like the marriages blessed by this pastor.

Your translation is. The Greek isn’t.

Doing so would strip Him of His most important aspect- His divinity

Nope.

The likes of Mainland China and Japan escaped colonisation

But not westernization. Japan is a great example: it was a closed country until the Meiji era, in the end of the 19th century. Until then homosexuality was accepted, and it became frowned upon only after western influence grew. It’s just racist to think that homophobia is normal outside the west.

While the verses in the Bible about Homosexuality couldn’t be clearer.

Bible stance on homosexuality is nor clear nor central. It’s your culture that impose this reading on the Bible. That’s not taking the Bible seriously; even the contrary.

I never thought someone could take the clear prophecies pointing towards Jesus throughout the old testament and distort them to think “yeah this means Jesus isn’t literally real”

He never said that Jesus wasn’t real?

Also the quotation where he claims Christians are still holding onto fourth century beliefs as if it’s a bad thing- does that mean Morality is subjective? That what was moral 1600 years ago isn’t moral now?

His argument is not about morals, it’s about the Bible. If something is from the 4th century, then it can’t be biblical.

There’s also undertones of white supremacy to this attitude as well. Suddenly, what white society sees as moral is morally correct.

Are.you implying that non-whites people are necessarily homophobic? Because it’s not the case, just look at Taiwan or Thailand which recently adopted homosexual marriage; and historically, colonial France and Great-Britain introduced anti-homosexuality laws in regions where homosexuality was accepted.

Taking the Bible seriously (or “literally”)

Literally and seriously are absolutely not synonymous.

we have the justification that we have the inspired word of God (which it claims to be, 2 Timothy 3:16)

Inspired doesn’t mean that it should be read literally.

if morality is whatever society says is okay and not the Bible, is it okay to refuse to give to the poor?

To cite the author of the text, “the opposite of not being literal is not that it’s not true. The opposite of literal is to be interpretive”. There are just a handful of not perfectly clear verses about homosexuality (the author of Leviticus or Paul spoke about a reality very different than ours), while there are thousands of absolutely clear verses about solidarity. If you interpret the Bible, you can’t treat these two subjects equally.

Christianity is very diverse, in Missouri as elsewhere. Sure this diversity is not equally distributed, but still you can find any type in any American state.

Between this closed door and the startling attics, and needing coffee, I feel trapped and sick. I look for a key, a note, anything which could help me find the sense of all this.

I try to get our to look at the mailbox. Maybe there’s a name on it?

Maybe there’s an orchard or a vegetable garden outside? I look out a window.

I look for something to eat.

Thank you Marcus Aurelius

Et l’argument « ils viennent de la campagne vous comprenez » c’est insultant en plus pour les ruraux·ales… c’est pas parce que tu viens du Santerre que tu dois être réac.